Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday October 27, 2012 @07:01PM
from the i'm-sure-it-was-a-polite-takedown dept.

blackfrancis75 writes "An aspiring teenage journalist in B.C., Canada who witnessed a mall takedown and decided to photograph it (using a real-film camera), was told to 'delete' the photo by security guards. He (quite legally) refused to do so, and when local police arrived they assisted mall security in pushing him to the ground, handcuffing him, cutting off his backpack with a utility knife and searching it. 'He said the security guards held him, attempting to grab his camera, and he was pushed to the ground. He said he then tried to use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag.
"They're just yelling and screaming, and just telling me to stop resisting," Markiewicz said.'"

I was going to say something similar. If your going to film a cop or a security guard getting busy with someone, make sure you have someone documenting you. A go pro is relatively cheap (there are similar self contained bullet even cheaper) and will not attract too much attention.

Then if something like this happens, put it on the evening news. Put it on the interweb, and put it in evidence for the court case to free whomever on the trumped up charge as well as helping sue the piss out of everyone.

Depends on which part. In terms of land area, most of Canada is north of Minnesota. In terms of population, most of Canada is south of Minnesota (the most populated part of Canada being the part that dips down with the Great Lakes, placing Toronto further south than Minnesota's "Twin Cities").

Montreal and Ottawa are both south of the 49th. (Even Thunder Bay is.) Most of the population of Ontario, Quebec and all of the eastern provinces do live south of the 49th, and those six provinces represent about 70% of Canada, so it's actually quite accurate that the majority of Canada's population lives south of the 49th.

No one with a brain is interested in visiting a police state, even if it is the
half-assed sort of mess typical of everything else Canadians do.

Try living in an *actual* police state sometime - the old Soviet Union, Communist Romania, today's China, Cuba, or most middle-eastern/third world countries, most of Africa or Asia, and get back to me, k?
Not trying to belittle what happened to the kid - it was wrong by any measure. But I really wish the hell people realized just how much difference there is between a western democracy and a REAL police state........

Well, recent events have demonstrated that the difference still exists in frequency, but the practices of reviled police states have now become acceptable practice in western democracy, which means the difference no longer exists in principle.

In the USA, the president can ask for anyone to be assassinated, and he will get this wish. There is no oversight on this process, and the legal doctrine which creates this power out of thin air is sealed from public review.

Also, in the USA, paramilitary police can now break down the door to your home, assassinate everyone inside, later admit they had the wrong house, and not face any repercussions whatsoever.

In the USA, children are being encouraged to report suspicious activities of their parents to government school employees. Ex-military and persons who profess an interest in the founding legal documents of the country are officially to be considered possible terrorists.

In Canada, if you profess a religious opinion in public which someone finds upsetting, you are hauled into a secret court.

So yeah. The US and Canada haven't quite caught up with former USSR, but we're working hard to get there.

Since you're not an American, perhaps you're not up to speed on some of what goes on here.

The military police assassinating people primarily happens via drug raids. Local police forces now have SWAT teams. I live in a small town (100,000 persons), with some trivial amount of violent crime annually (perhaps 5 murders). Yet in my town there is a SWAT team, and they sortie several times per month. It is to break into peoples homes for drug enforcement.

In many towns in the USA, these raids are done as "no knock", that is, the police just break down the door, early in the morning (5am is a typical time). The pets are almost always killed while the terrified children watch. The father is often killed during these operations, since he, like any reasonable person, acts defensive, sometimes with a weapon,when people break into his home in the middle of the night.

The police who incorrectly perform these raids against innocent people are NEVER reprimanded. The commanders and other people in the chain of information that cause the raids to go against the wrong address are NEVER reprimanded.

Regarding the president assassinating people: Perhaps you need to be an American to understand _principle_. In the US, there is this cherished principle that people who are not actively in the middle of commiting a crimeare to be arrested, to have a trial, to face their accuser, and so on.

Yet the current doctrine is that the president can say that _anyone_, _anywhere_ in the world is a terrorist -- and by his accusation alone, that person can be assassinated. This is de-facto the _same_ as saying that you don't like the kid down the street. Your ignorance on this matter makes me wonder if _YOU_ have ever lived in a police state. Do you think police state dictators actually say things like "I had him killed because his music sucked?" Of course not. People are killed for very good reasons -- like "undermining the will of the people" or "being a grave danger to the security of our homeland" and all kinds of other such bullshit.

The point isn't that I think Obama is killing people he doesn't like. The point is that he now has created (and used!) the power for himself to do so. And this power will be handed on to the next president, and so on. This is a critical inflection point in American history, and we will look back to this era and woefully mourn what we let these assholes get away with.

And no, you are wrong. No judge is required. The president's cabinet give him a list of targets, and he says yes or no to each one. That's what we know about the process.

Regarding the story in Canada: yes, I am referring to the hate speech tribunals. It is encouraging to hear that they are making token gestures to fix them. It is outrageous that they ever existed at all. Canada does not have free speech in any meaningful sense until these circuses are eliminated.

Watch the end of America [youtube.com] which applies to ALL of the west, because they are all pretty much following the same game plan, suppress rights, use cops as thugs, the stuff we are seeing now is what they saw in Italy and Germany in the early 30s, its how you take a modern society, like Germany and Italy before their "dear leaders" came to power that was an open society, and slowly but surely make it into a closed society.

What I don't get is that here in this land of North America, we've got it pretty good. Why are so many trying to kill the goose which has been laying all these golden eggs? This prosperous society, far removed from places which are simply less fortunate and certainly less civilized, seems to be collapsing down from its enviable position.

I guess they never got the memo talking about balance in society and knowing when you have enough wealth and power. Having too much wealth and power creates and unstable situation which invariably results in the masses seeking to restore stability.

We're okay with insanely rich people... just so long as the majority of us aren't suffering because of it. Turns out, majorities are suffering... and becoming motivated.

How are rich people responsible for thuggish, authoritarian cops and security guards? It sounds to me like governments ultimately have to be held responsible for it. The War Against Photography has little to do with any sort of rich vs poor class warfare.

The reasons you think that way:1. Wealth distribution is a curve, not a line. That means the difference between the 50th percentile and the 10th percentile isn't as large as the difference between the 10th percentile and the 5th percentile which isn't close to as large as the difference between the 5% and the 1%. For example, the richest person in the world, Bill Gates, has something like $60 billion. There are approximately 400 billionaires in the US. There are about 5 million millionaire households. If you're something like the 60 millionth wealthiest American, you probably are holding something like $250K. And if you have a net worth above $50K, then you're richer than half of America.

2. Most people with significant cash don't really see the lives of people much poorer than them. For example, a college roommate of mine thought he was from a typical American family with both parents making 6-figure incomes, or an income that was roughly 6 times that of an average American. The key thing to realize is that a life you would recognize as similar to your own, with a fairly spacious and comfortable house, good car, a 4-year degree or higher, working about 8-10 hours Mon-Fri at a desk in an office (or at home), and money socked away for the kids' college education and/or your retirement, is about as far away a dream to a working-class person as getting above $100 million is to you: It's not entirely out of reach, but it's highly unlikely.

Yeah, there's all that. Blah blah. I held opinions similar to yours until last year. And then I got first-hand experience with police thugs.

I was just standing there, watching people having their IDs checked, and failed to immediately comply told to move along. I got beaten up, arrested, and held overnight for fallacious reasons (being drunk). I sued the two cops for assault. They got off clean. I got a fine for good measure.

If you ever get beaten up and arrested by cops for no other reason than just standing there, and subsequently booted out of court when you press charges against them for assault, you'll probably hold a very different opinion.

I'm pretty libertarian and think there are far too many laws in this country but this is one of the cases which makes me favour some law over anarchy. This is one rare case where I'd feel justified in actually calling the police.... oh wait!

I used to be libertarian, so I'll give you the spiel. Libertarians accept basic criminal law (battery, theft, etc) and contract law (especially rules clarifying how to buy and sell) statutes. That's probably 70% of the laws that affect you on a daily basis, the other 30% being traffic laws. (It's worth noting that assault with a motor vehicle is a criminal offense.)

The laws libertarians disagree with are the special handouts in tax law, the heavy regulation of business, government dictating what people can do with their property, and certain criminal laws that try to regulate society, e.g. sodomy laws. In a libertarian country, you would see people behaving in the same law-abiding manner as you do here. You'd probably find that cities and such would be far more chaotic and eccentric since there would be much less central planning, but there'd be no anarchy to speak of.

The big problem with libertarianism is that not all the "heavy regulation of business" and "government dictating what people can do with their property" is bad. There are 2 big flaws with the libertarian model of human society as far as I can see, the first being dealing with "externalities" that is to say the downstream costs of industry the second being the cost of information.

Externalities are a problem because the effects are either unnecessary or even economically impossible to mitigate. Some effects can be far away, hundreds of miles or across state borders such that retaliation, even if you permitted mob killings of businesses by non customer victims, is not possible or not within the resources of the victims... So why fix? Other effects can, with race to the bottom cost cutting, be impossible to fix and still keep a ruining business the local population would then be left with a choice of putting up with side effects such as asthma or low level poisoning etc. or losing all their jobs and starving to death en-mass (remember poor people starving to death happens even today in countries without government handouts)

The cost of information may seem trivial but it is important, sensible decisions take information and this requires time and effort. This time and effort is approximated out of most modern market models simply by assuming it does not exist, but this is a flaw in those models not a truth. Everyone knows that people buy overpriced brands not because they are worth the price but because they will not be bad, and the extra cost is worth the time which would be spent finding a better value option. With heath and safety removed unrecognised brands have much less to lose if they take risks with their customers lives, even everyday decisions become life and death. The actually safe brands can at this point charge an even more ridiculous premium for that safety, your life is on the line after all. The rest of the brands will then require actual effort and study to find out just whether they are safe which does not exist now. This might seem a triviality but when every item of food water and hardware you buy from beans to your new car is a choice between an even more expensive premium brand, and a substantive amount of study to find the safe option you will quickly run out of both money and the time to find the best option and be left to gamble with your life on the line. This is not a good thing, it does not make people happier or safer or more prosperous. (This also ignores the distortion effects of marketing that can be brought by existing big players)

Washed them away?? You're conflating the businesses with the human beings that run them.

If we let the banks go bankrupt, we'd currently be in the Great Depression II, while the bankers would be living like kings off their ill-gotten gains.

We had to bail the banks out for the good of everyone. Where we went wrong was not punishing the scumbags who created the problem, and not breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks. In other words, our problem wasn't too much government intervention, but too little.

>Are you referring to the "law-abiding manner" in which our business and financial communities have behaved?

You mean the law-abiding manner in which they use and abuse your government to pass regulations that support their monopolies (or near monopolies)? Or the law-abiding manner in which they lobby for subsidies using your tax dollars?

Both things which libertarianism abolishes, but current government supports in spades.

>Libertarians seem to believe that without heavy regulation that free market fai

Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers...

This relies heavily on the customers making fully informed choices. But companies will not reveal any information to the customer they don't have to. Here's some places that could really hurt you:
- Amusement park rides made by the lowest bidder that kill children years down the line.
- Food sourced from China and imported.
- Internet service providers "adjusting" your connection speed so that you can easily reach websites they're getting kickbacks from (net neutrality stuff).

Also, if a company is ever caught in the act, it could simply change its name or disguise itself to hide from the bad press. People forget.

And lastly, there is no incentive for companies to create infrastructure - why lay down fiber optics when we're making tons of money from wires? Heck, private interests will try to prevent progress where possible - just look at the Prop 6 "free bridge" fiasco.

Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers

They're still accountable to their customers. We can choose to walk away with our money any time we want. Has customer accountability influenced their decisions at all? Well, we've got Goldman Sachs over there, selling Mortgage Backed Securities that are designed to fail to their customers, and then shorting those very same securities. And yet Goldman still has customers...

Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion.

After killing people, like the fungal meningitis outbreak. Note that compounding pharmacies are outside of FDA's authority. This allowed them to circumvent regulations that probably would have stopped this outbreak from spreading across half the nation. Yes, circumventing regulations resulted in lower prices, but I think more expensive drugs is worth the lower risk of death.

Sure, this particular pharmacy is going to fail "by popular opinion". But without regulations, it's only a matter of time until the next pharmacy fails...and the next one...and the next one...and with each one comes another group of people who needlessly died.

And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.

Sounds like wishful thinking. How exactly is a smaller company going to take down two bigger companies that are colluding? The two bigger companies can start selling their product at below cost to drive the smaller company out of business, using their cash reserves to out-live the smaller competitor.

There are two problems with the libertarian philosophy. First, it assumes perfect knowledge of all markets, which just isn't happening ever. Without perfect knowledge, consumers lose significant power. Second, it has no solutions to the issue of corporations becoming more powerful than consumers.

Libertarians believe that bankers will behave when they're accountable to their customers, rather than to the regulators who have failed spectacularly for all of the 20th and this portion of the 21st century. We've gone from regional bank failures to national bank bailouts. No improvement there, I think.

They're accountable now to their customers and shareholders, even with regulators. Remove the regulators and you'd get the exact same behavior. Worse, probably, because there's no one ever looking over their shoulder.

Libertarians believe that companies who "doctor" their drugs will fail by popular opinion.

Indeed. We'll just have to wait for people to die from adulterated drugs and pay when a loved one dies to determine if it's the fault of the drug.

Would we be better off without the FDA

No.

And if the two biggest companies in a field colluded, in a Libertarian society, they wouldn't be able to collude for long. Number three would wipe its' arse with their remains, in very short order.

Bull. In a Libertarian society, number 3 would never be able to appear.

(By the way, I work a government. Too many of the people I work with are real shitheads for me to believe that the government works on the behalf of its citizens. I recall a recent significant reorganization to de-fang a minor long-lived shithead. ..)

Indeed. Corporate law and governance is always better than government by the citizens.

Companies who doctor their drugs will make massive profits, injure thousands if not millions and spend decades in court denying they did anything wrong. So zero change, apart from that the lives of people will not depend on a government agency that at least nominally works to ensure public safety but to a mere cost benefit analysis of whether the human misery caused and the expense of the lawsuits will be less than the profits to be made.

Bankers are already accountable to their customers. They have so far failed to give a shit and under a Libertarian administration the customer would have lost all their money through the crime (under Libertarian thinking) of not knowing everything their bank was up to.

What would happen to the third company if the two big companies worked together to drive it out of the market? Would it be able to compete if both companies were selling below cost because they had other sources of revenue?

What we need is better government, not less government. I can see the attraction of sweeping the whole rotten edifice away but there are so many things that I wouldn't trust a corporate shark with without them being watched very closely that I can't agree with the Libertarian philosophy.

Crazy that the FDA blocked Thalidomide while the EU got squid babies. I'll take late over unsafe.

What EU? You're talking about an entity that didn't yet exist--and wouldn't, for another 30 years or so (Treaty of Maasricht, 1993). In fact, Thalidomide was distributed widely in some European countries, and almost not at all in some others, depending on actions taken by various national health authorities.

You also make it sound like there was never any Thalidomide distributed in the US, which is not exactly the case [wikipedia.org]:

Although thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States at the time, millions of tablets had been distributed to physicians during a clinical testing program. It was impossible to know how many pregnant women had been given the drug to help alleviate morning sickness or as a sedative.

Yes, I'm quite glad that the US have an FDA, and that relatively few people were born without limbs there as a result in early 1960s (my brother and I not being among them, thank goodness!). Dr Kelsey [wikipedia.org] certainly earned the award she later received for standing up to Big Pharma and blocking sale of the drug in the US.

No, there is no reason to employ fuzzy thinking, inaccuracy, or hyperbole either to appreciate these things or to bring them to others' attention.

I think it's fair to want people to resolve differences like reasonable adults.

Differences like a mall security wanting some kid to delete his photos, and the kid refusing/being unable to do so? That should have been resolved in a reasonable manner, but it wasn't.

But when it comes down to the decision to sue or not to sue, it should be based on what's in your best interests

I'd say reminding the authorities of their responsibilities to the public is in everyone's personal interest. It's sad that dragging them to court seems to be the best way of doing that these days, but there we are.

I think it's fair to want people to resolve differences like reasonable adults.

Differences like a mall security wanting some kid to delete his photos, and the kid refusing/being unable to do so? That should have been resolved in a reasonable manner, but it wasn't.

If someone tells you to delete the photos, you ask them "have I committed a crime by taking these photos?" If they say "yes" then you tell them "So you are asking me to destroy evidence of a crime?" if they say "yes" to that then you tell them "so you are asking me to commit another crime." All done in a level, reasonable tone of voice.

If they say "no, you have not committed a crime by taking these photos." then you say "Then I am free to go. Thank you for your time." and walk away.

If someone is asserting that you delete anything in the first place, their motive is to cover their ass. If no one is watching, it ends up being your ass in the hospital and a he-said-she-said set of litigation

They should be sued for assault and for damage to his property. This should be paid for by the individuals, not out of RCMP funds - several thousand $ is a lot to individual members of the RCMP, but not to the RCMP as an organisation. Unless there is a penalty for their actions they will not change.

They should then be fired since it is plain that they are not fit to serve in the trusted role that RCMP is.

Doug MacDougall needs to have it explained that someone does not have to do everything that their staff demand, their staff have limits on what they can ask someone to do.

What the RCMP officers did VERY wrong was to blindly take sides in a dispute, helping an aggressor against his victim. They arrived to the scene where suspect A was assaulting, holding down and trying to destroy property of suspect B who was resisting the aggression and trying to protect his property. Then they proceeded to cuff suspect B (the victim), damage and confiscate his property, and arrest him; all while leaving suspect A (the aggressor) free.

Stopping taking pictures on private property is one of the things the someone can be told to do.

This wasn't about stopping taking pictures - the demand was to delete the pictures. Which he couldn't - it's a film camera. And it's not something they're legally entitled to under Canadian law. From the story:

Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.

The security guards made an illegal request that they thought they could get away with - and usually they would have because people are easily cowed. In this case, the kid couldn't comply, they didn't pay attention, and they escalated the situation for no reason. I'm hoping the mall gets sued.

It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states. Made at a time when there wasn't a sufficient full time army.

If you really think the second amendment COULD protect you from the government, you're insane. The US has by far the biggest and most sophisticated war machine in the world. Your puny firearm isn't going to stand up to a tank, a fighter jet, a helicopter gunship or a drone.

It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states. Made at a time when there wasn't a sufficient full time army.

Uh, no. You fail history.

We have a second amendment for the explicit purpose overthrowing an oppressive federal government.

Read your Federalist Papers:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. [...] To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. [...] But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." (#46, James Madison)

You can make a reasonable argument for the second amendment referring to the National Guard (though that organization has become nothing more than one more branch of the Federal military, making such an argument moot); But they originally existed very clearly for the purpose of protecting the states from the federal government.

First, it seems to me to be a rather narrow reading of of the federalist papers to validate current concerns, rather than a reading of them in the context of the general concerns of the populace a the time they were written. In doing so it glosses over the true purpose of No. 46, which was to calm fears regarding Madison's proposal that the federal government keep a standing army. Madison was the Big Government Guy in historical context, arguing against the anti-federalists who desired to keep the Articles of Confederation, a weaker federal government, and no standing army, which was obviously seen as a tool of governmental oppression. Madison was simply reminding the people that A. they had already handled that situation before, and B. that the basic federal structure of the states precluded the type of tyranny they most feared. I see No. 46 speaking more about the power of local political organization than about the right to bear arms.

Second, it strikes me as ridiculous to treat the federalist papers as some kind of authority over the constitution. They were pieces of propaganda. This is not to discount their value in framing the political debate in its context or in getting inside the minds of Hamilton and Madison. It is simply a fact. They were written to persuade the populace to support the Constitution. They were propaganda. While they may give insight, they are still advertising. And they certainly do not trump the fact that Article I Section 8 vests the power to organize the militia in Congress, not in the States. Whether or not an armed populace was, in the minds of our founders, provided for the purpose of overthrowing the federal government they were founding, in the Constitution it is tied to the militia, and the militia is explicitly created as a function of the federal government.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And how exactly do you propose to take up our duty to overthrow such oppressive governments? Sticks and Stones? No. That's why the 2nd. exists... There is no clause: "The Guns and Militias must be federally approved, funded and employed."
Also from the USDI -- This is the section near the end where the crimes against us is listed -- Things that should not be tolerated, and a revolution started instead.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

That's what corporations are allowed to do to us. See the Sony vs G.Hotz deal, they could have sued him where the alleged infringement was committed, but instead chose a court thousands of miles away.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

TSA, Homeland Security. Additionally, they don't eat out our substance by way of quartered troops, they do so via increased taxes.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

Just this past month the armed forces declared Julian Asange an enemy of the state. Protip: Only Congress is supposed to be able to do that.

And on the issue of trying to peacefully right the wrongs:

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

Ever tried to get a law changed? We have law making bodies, not law unmaking bodies. Jury Nullification is our defense -- The last jury I was on, the judge tossed all the potential jurors out to get a new batch because we all said we wouldn't be able to make our decision in accordance with the unjust law he quoted -- Thereby removing our only recourse against the unjust rule of law. I followed the case, it took 4 complete jury changes to get 12 people who would uphold that bogus law. Ever gone up against a cop in court? It's a mock trial at best. Very rarely when some truly heinous stuff goes down they'll get a slap on the wrist. Hell, two cops called a wrecker to tow my neighbor's car for being parked the wrong way. I video taped them DROPPING THE CAR on its side, totaling it. Later, the judge refused to ad

Private security folk do not have any right to man-handle people who are not are non-threatening in Canada. With no apparent theft, or abuse or danger imminent, their sole legal recourse should have been to contact the RCMP.

The problem was the kid losing his cool. Now he'll probably get nowhere with what should have been a great lawsuit and a huge embarrassment to the mall.

Instead his "causing a disturbance" gave the police cause to arrest him. After that, it was all normal. When you arrest someone you make sure they're no longer armed, if that requires cutting off their backpack (because they cuffed you for causing a disturbance) then that's normal too. I know it's rude, but it's practical. Get over it.

I don't know if I could have done any better than this kid at 16. And I'm glad he stood up to them.

If you can keep your cool, when you've snapped a great takedown pick and a mall-cop demands something of you, politely decline, and start dialling 911 as you explain why they have no right to it. If they proceed with initiating force to take things from you describe what is happening to you phone as it's happening. In most places these calls are recorded. Let them bring all the force and you “be the guy” who wanted the police involved and a non-violent solution from the beginning.

If you can pull that off, when they explain themselves to the police and the judge, they're going to sound like the dickheads that they are.

If you can keep your cool, when you've snapped a great takedown pick and a mall-cop demands something of you, politely decline.

Actually, they CAN (in BC and Ontario, at least) legally tell you to stop taking pictures and/or leave the property. Failing to do so "as soon as practicable" then becomes trespassing and they can have you arrested.

They cannot make you delete the pictures you've already taken nor can they detain you nor can they search or seize anything.

When you are told to jump from a bridge, jump from a bridge, right? When you are told to delete something that can't be deleted (because it is within a chemical film) by people who don't have the right to ask you to do so, then do it, right?

Well, in the U.S. you could always draw your handgun at the two security guards and then just step away calmly. Concealed carry is a must for any budding photojournalist.

Those security guards had no authority except to ask you to leave. They had no authority to force you to delete any photos and if they try to physically detain you that would be assault and battery in the U.S. at least. You would certainly be justified in using force to defend yourself against the assailants. Cops are given special status t

This is a key point... the only thing they could rightly do is ask him to leave, even if they have a 'no camera' rule in place.

The equivalent is, say you have a party at your house, and one of your invited guests start behaving in a manner you don't like, but is otherwise legal. You don't suddenly get the right to assault them or take or destroy their property, even if you claim to have a "rule" in your house that allows you to do so. You can ask them to leave. Once you've asked, if they refuse to leave, only then are they trespassing. This doesn't seem to be what happened to the teen, because, according to the article, he was in fact trying to leave the mall of his own volition.

... That's what I absolutely love about my phone camera... Go ahead and smash it; the photo's already auto-uploaded.
Of course, later, when I'm running for president and those *other* pix show up, it's gonna be mighty awkward.

1) Security guards are pinning somebody down in a mall2) Kid takes pictures3) Mall 'cops' demand he delete photos from his *film* camera4) Kid declines, tries to leave (while taking more pictures)5) Guards assault the kid (unlawful, because all they're allowed to do is remove him for trespassing unless he's committed a crime, in which case they can hold him for police)6) Kid is swearing and mouthing off (no shit!)7) RCMP shows up, sees unruly teen being held by mall cops, and cuffs the kid.8) Genius cop decides that to search the kid's backpack, he's going to cut the straps to get around the handcuffs

The real cops made some minor decisions that make things look worse, but given the circumstances I'm not sure we can really blame them. If the kid had kept his cool and done something smart - like politely request the guards be arrested for assaulting him when all he'd done is take a picture instead of cursing and being mouthy, this could have been a much funnier story.

Neither the kid nor the real cops handled the situation perfectly, but the real villains here are the minimum wage mall cops who should all be fired. If I were that kid, I'd be putting up their photos (and he still has those!) on a nice web site with the caption, "I work at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C., and I assault mall patrons for taking photographs, with the full support of the mall owners."... I bet things would change pretty damn quickly once that shitstorm caught on with the local news.

Public? I think you don't know how malls work. They're private spaces with private security guards. There's one close by that bans picture taking, movies, sitting on benches for more than 15 minutes, and even assembling of more than 3 folks at a time. Fortunately it's a chick mall with pretty much nothing for a guy to do but hold her purse (there is a movie theater but no gear shops).

It's private property but you still can't be assaulted over taking a picture. You can tell someone to leave and not come back, refuse to serve someone, ect but nowhere does the law allow you to be physically retrained and your person property cut off from you for taking a photo. No free society should ever tolerate such completely and utter b.s.

Why don't you come over to my house and try to take a picture or exhibit some "other" behavior that I deem unacceptable in my home. See if you feel the same way when me and three other big guys throw you to the ground and forcibly take your property by cutting it off you back,

I am surprised at how idiots think assault is "okay" when a corporation's representatives does it on their property just cause they decide they don't like your attitude.

When legality is defined by whatever a mall security guard says then nobody can ever be sure about what is or is not legal. That's why we have laws codified by government and available for everybody to read. Security guards don't get to make it up as they go.

When legality is defined by whatever a mall security guard says then nobody can ever be sure about what is or is not legal.

I can't speak to local statutes, but an owner of private property (e.g., a mall) can have restrictions on what constitutes acceptable behavior on that property. If you violate them, they can ask you to leave; if you don't, they can have the police arrest you for trespass.

If you come into my house and do something I deem inappropriate, I have the right to ask you to leave. If you don't, I can call the police to force you to leave my property. The same thing is true of owners of malls.

Mall security guards are generally assumed to have the authority of the owner to enforce and interpret the owner's policies.

That's why we have laws codified by government and available for everybody to read. Security guards don't get to make it up as they go.

Actually, they can "make it up" to some extent, as long as they have the support of the owner. There is no requirement that their actions even be consistent, as long as they do not violate other laws (physical assault, discrimination against a particular race or something, etc.).

In this case, the security guards clearly had the right to request someone to leave after taking a photo, if they deemed it within the scope of what the owner of the property would consider inappropriate activity (and a mall owner might in fact not want photos or videos of his security personnel showing up on the internet).

That said, they did not have the right to confiscate his property. If there was a posted warning that people who entered the property could not take photographs, they might be able to get the police to take legal action on their behalf, or perhaps sue the person in court to force compliance with the mall policy -- e.g., if the person posted video of the mall on the internet, the mall might be able to sue for damages if it clearly had a policy disallowing photography. It doesn't sound like there was any posted warning in this case, at least from the incomplete account in TFA.

It sounds like it all went wrong when the police arrived, and they forced an arrest and confiscation of property, rather than simply forcing the person leave the premises, as was probably the appropriate legal remedy for the security guards here.

The security guards may have been in error for overstepping their own bounds in their request, but in doing so they did not commit any crime (again, I'm relying on the account in TFA). But the real issue here is the police who assaulted a private citizen (and, it sounds like, authorized the mall security to assist in assaulting him) and confiscated property apparently without cause.

I'll clarify the following as well, not only did the rent-a-cops detain and assualt the kid when he tried to leave even if the mall had posted signs that said no photo's under Canadian law the only thing they could do was ask him to leave which is what they assaulted him for trying to do. Also it was the real cops which cut the backpack off, handcuffed and arrested him for "disturbing the peace" which is apparently what you get charged with in Canada when you try to leave private property after refusing an illegal request.

The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause. The guards were probably just doing as they were told and any blame should be put on the policy makers. Would you risk your job or follow policy? This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.

Does the policy need to be changed? Probably but thet is not the guard's call.

The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause. The guards were probably just doing as they were told and any blame should be put on the policy makers. Would you risk your job or follow policy? This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.

Does the policy need to be changed? Probably but thet is not the guard's call.

Fine. So (if the guard laid a hand on the kid, as the picture would suggest) the guard's defense can be "management told me to assault him and take away his camera". Then you call the manager to the stand and ask them if they gave that order. And the manager will say "of course I told them to do it, if anyone is guilty of assault it is me." Or perhaps, bosses being what they are, they'll say "oh, no, no, we never told the guard to do that" and leave the guard to hang out and dry. Which would be an obje

The guard does not make the policy; management does. If the guard does not enforce the management policy they will be fired for cause.

More often than not, the people responsible for enforcing [policy] are undertrained and do not fully understand how they are supposed to be enforcing [policy].And sometimes, not even the management understands how a policy should be implemented within the bounds of the law.

This is not an "I was just following orders" as used in the Munich trials; no one was killed.

Is it okay to assault people as long as no one is killed?Is it okay to infringe upon their civil liberties, as long as no one is killed?WTF kind of specious argument is that?

It is private property that is open to the public unless you have been specifically banned from there. And for it to be illegal to take pictures inside a mall or any publically accessible but privately owned facility, there need to be signs posted at the entrances clearly stating such a prohibition.

They can tell him to stop photographing and/or leave the property. If he doesn't do so "as soon as practicable after receiving the direction", then it's trespassing and they can call the police and have him arrested. They ARE NOT allowed to seize his property nor order him to delete any pictures already taken.

Slashdot users amaze me. They're experts not just on U.S. law but Canadian law as well!

It's a thing called common sense. Try using it sometime and you will see how liberating it can be. This common sense stuff allows for discussions on any number of topics without having to be fully schooled in the subject and a practitioner in that field. It also allows you to go about your day to day life without having to appeal to some higher authority for permission to engage in most anything you feel like doing that is harmless to all.

You're right. They can tell him not to take photos, and they can tell him to leave the premises, but that's it. They have no right to detain him or to search his person or his belongings because he took a photo.

Your opinion about what is public space is irrelevant. Legally a private property can be public space as it is the case here. The owner can still put conditions to your presence there, but the only thing he can do if you don't comply is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, call the police, which will then arrest you. They cannot confiscate your property or the pictures you took and much less assault you.

So, how sure are you of the legality of the things you do? Laws these days are made so that anything anyone does can be made to be illegal. I'm pretty sure that you do more than 3 illegal things each and every day without knowing it, let alone be sure of the legality of it. So you just stop doing anything?

I know you're just kidding. Anything that is in the public view is open to be photographed. How do you think the fucking paparazzi get away with sticking their cameras in the face of celebrities? This is just another example of why there should be a law requiring security and police forces to make a real living wage. This is the kind of shit you get when you pay 8 dollars an hour for your security guards. If they actually payed a decent wage they could hire people with more than half a brain.

It only became a problem when more and more people were pushed out of the "establishment". 'til we were kicked out of the "good, hard working and well earning citizen" country club, we were quite happy that law enforcement kept us safe from the proles.

Well, now we've become proles too. Wonder how long it takes for critical mass to accumulate and society to explode violently.

Unlike the other respondents, I think crap like this will necessarily stop. You can assault one teenager with a camera. You can't assault 50 bystanders who are wearing a device that is basically taking and uploading pictures all the time. We'll start seeing mall "cops" fired for abusing patrons. We'll start seeing police fired (but not prosecuted, I fear) for abusing the public.

To be clear, I don't think all security are bad, not by a long shot. I think some are, and provably so. The problem now is that they're generally the ones with the cameras, and sometimes those dash cams or security cameras are mysteriously not working when they do something wrong.

A lot feel like surveillance is bad, but like speech and guns, surveillance is a tool that can be used for good or evil.

It may be last century's tech, but it's more rugged, less expensive and you don't have to worry about getting dirt and dust on the sensor. There Is nothing like digital for convenience, but old school film cameras were great, too.

This is like a perfect recipe for a news story:(1) Low wage / Low IQ employees in a position of perceived authority(2) Young person with no perceived authority(3) Loose understanding of the laws and common sense(4*) Sexually embarrassing a teen (*only recommended for hardcore McDonalds recipes)

We all remember the "Pièce de résistance" during the McDonalds illegal strip search of a teenager... clearly the aftermath of that wasn't shocking enough to make a difference.

Yeah, I wondered that too. Initially I thought they were demolishing the mall, or something. But apparently he took a photo of the mall security tackling some other guy to the ground.

Now that everyone's got a phone camera, I can envisage more "knock-on" incidents like this. Just imagine if someone else had photographed this guy being taken down, at which point security would have to go for the person #3 as well... pretty soon you're going to run out of security guards. It's probably good if everyone gets in

1. It was in a public space. He was legally allowed to take that picture.
2. Media credentials do not have anything to do with legality. The state need not recognize you as a journalistic institution for you to have freedom of the press.
3. I applaud him photographing the takedown. Clearly we have different opinions there.